Anyone who wonders what Evan Mathis is up to...

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

No doubt, it was great information, seemed more a tutorial than an expose to me though.

I think it was intended as a middle finger to PSA. They won't allow him to grade cards anymore, which he is bitter about (and which he expressly stated in an interview). In the early days of grading, everyone knew what was going on. PSA included. It was a good ol' boys club. It was all hush-hush. All those guys were slicing up cards. They knew it. They allowed it. It's only in recent years that some of this stuff has become more public and exposed. Now PSA wants to pretend like they weren't complicit early on, banning the customers upon whose backs they built their brand. Mathis asked Nat Turner to reinstate his submission privileges and promised not to send in trimmed cards. Of course, he was denied. In response, he showed Nat a bunch of cards in Nat's personal collection that either he himself trimmed or that his friends trimmed. Then he effectively said, "fine, you want to see how ignorant you guys are, here... here's 100x more trimmers than you had last week. Have fun with BODA." Meanwhile, he just submits through friends and bulk submitters instead, and PSA keeps up their facade of pretending like they can identify trimmed cards.

I've said this a few times, but this hobby desperately needs a "secret shopper" that submits known altered and unaltered cards to every TPG, reporting statistics on the percentage of Type I and Type II errors they make (e.g., how often they miss trimmed cards, and how often they falsely flag untrimmed cards). Would be very interesting to see those results.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I think it was intended as a middle finger to PSA. They won't allow him to grade cards anymore, which he is bitter about (and which he expressly stated in an interview).

I wonder if PSA stopped allowing him to submit before or after his tiktok trimming tutorial video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOkVBJsLEjk

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

I wonder if PSA stopped allowing him to submit before or after his tiktok trimming tutorial video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOkVBJsLEjk

Pretty sure it was before.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

I wonder if PSA stopped allowing him to submit before or after his tiktok trimming tutorial video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOkVBJsLEjk

It was well before that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I've said this a few times, but this hobby desperately needs a "secret shopper" that submits known altered and unaltered cards to every TPG, reporting statistics on the percentage of Type I and Type II errors they make (e.g., how often they miss trimmed cards, and how often they falsely flag untrimmed cards). Would be very interesting to see those results.

Substitute "depressing" for "interesting."

I'd also like to see a secret shopper buy up 100 PSA 10s from an insider and resubmit them raw.

[Exhibitman]

It was (is?) possible to get a ten out of the pack or set. I’ve had several of them over the years. Much as I dislike grading I can’t be so cynical as to say that every ten is doctored, at least not in the post 1980 arena.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

It was (is?) possible to get a ten out of the pack or set. I’ve had several of them over the years. Much as I dislike grading I can’t be so cynical as to say that every ten is doctored, at least not in the post 1980 arena.

It used to be possible. I would argue that it no longer is (or that it's nearly impossible rather, and that any 10 you might be lucky enough to get would almost certainly not regrade as a 10 again if cracked and resubmitted). Surely, there's a turning point where card manufacturing eventually rose to a level where they were capable of producing gem mint cards, and if you get some nice pack-fresh cards from those years, you can still get gem mint grades (as you said, post 1980ish - with a few exceptions like the Rickey Henderson RC). But for pre-war and the early Topps stuff, pretty much everything from the 50s and 60s, they just didn't make truly gem mint cards. You'd have to grade those on a curve to give them a 10. PSA used to do this. They used to give 9s and 10s to really nice-looking cards with flaws in the early days, but they no longer do. Every card has edge defects and corners that aren't perfectly sharp. Nowadays, the only way to get a "perfect" card is to "improve" one. PSA sees so many trimmed cards that they now think those are legit pack-pulled cards. And they've become the new standard by which all other cards are now measured against.

PSA has simply moved the goalposts too far from where they used to be. They had moved it by about a full grade prior to the pandemic when compared to the early days, and have moved it another full grade since then (give or take). If you haven't been submitting vintage cards for grading in the past year or two, then you may not have recognized it. But cards that used to be graded as 6s and even 7s are currently being put into 4 and 5 holders with extreme regularity. You can occasionally still get a fair grader, but on average, it's really gotten bad there. The correlation between grade distributions for each card and what year they were submitted is extremely high.

I've graded thousands of vintage cards over the past few years, and I keep meticulous records. Grading today is just a vastly different landscape than it used to be.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It used to be possible. I would argue that it no longer is (or that it's nearly impossible rather, and that any 10 you might be lucky enough to get would almost certainly not regrade as a 10 again if cracked and resubmitted). Surely, there's a turning point where card manufacturing eventually rose to a level where they were capable of producing gem mint cards, and if you get some nice pack-fresh cards from those years, you can still get gem mint grades (as you said, post 1980ish - with a few exceptions like the Rickey Henderson RC). But for pre-war and the early Topps stuff, pretty much everything from the 50s and 60s, they just didn't make truly gem mint cards. You'd have to grade those on a curve to give them a 10. PSA used to do this. They used to give 9s and 10s to really nice-looking cards with flaws in the early days, but they no longer do. Every card has edge defects and corners that aren't perfectly sharp. Nowadays, the only way to get a "perfect" card is to "improve" one. PSA sees so many trimmed cards that they now think those are legit pack-pulled cards. And they've become the new standard by which all other cards are now measured against.

PSA has simply moved the goalposts too far from where they used to be. They had moved it by about a full grade prior to the pandemic when compared to the early days, and have moved it another full grade since then (give or take). If you haven't been submitting vintage cards for grading in the past year or two, then you may not have recognized it. But cards that used to be graded as 6s and even 7s are currently being put into 4 and 5 holders with extreme regularity. You can occasionally still get a fair grader, but on average, it's really gotten bad there. The correlation between grade distributions for each card and what year they were submitted is extremely high.

I've graded thousands of vintage cards over the past few years, and I keep meticulous records. Grading today is just a vastly different landscape than it used to be.

This is Spot On Truth.

[Snowman]

I should also point out that SGC is doing a pretty solid job of maintaining consistent, fair, and accurate grades across the board for the most part. They've tightened up their standards a little bit as well since the early days, but at least they haven't moved their goalposts by two full grades like PSA has. And they actually utilize the half point grading system, unlike PSA. If your card is dead centered and free of some major defect, it's probably getting the half point bump 80-90% of the time at SGC and about 1-2% of the time at PSA. And that's not an exaggeration.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I should also point out that SGC is doing a pretty solid job of maintaining consistent, fair, and accurate grades across the board for the most part. They've tightened up their standards a little bit as well since the early days, but at least they haven't moved their goalposts by two full grades like PSA has. And they actually utilize the half point grading system, unlike PSA. If your card is dead centered and free of some major defect, it's probably getting the half point bump 80-90% of the time at SGC and about 1-2% of the time at PSA. And that's not an exaggeration.

Based on an admittedly small sample size, namely one sub of 35 or so cards, I disagree. Mine were all graded down 2 or more grades.

[glynparson]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It used to be possible. I would argue that it no longer is (or that it's nearly impossible rather, and that any 10 you might be lucky enough to get would almost certainly not regrade as a 10 again if cracked and resubmitted). Surely, there's a turning point where card manufacturing eventually rose to a level where they were capable of producing gem mint cards, and if you get some nice pack-fresh cards from those years, you can still get gem mint grades (as you said, post 1980ish - with a few exceptions like the Rickey Henderson RC). But for pre-war and the early Topps stuff, pretty much everything from the 50s and 60s, they just didn't make truly gem mint cards. You'd have to grade those on a curve to give them a 10. PSA used to do this. They used to give 9s and 10s to really nice-looking cards with flaws in the early days, but they no longer do. Every card has edge defects and corners that aren't perfectly sharp. Nowadays, the only way to get a "perfect" card is to "improve" one. PSA sees so many trimmed cards that they now think those are legit pack-pulled cards. And they've become the new standard by which all other cards are now measured against.

PSA has simply moved the goalposts too far from where they used to be. They had moved it by about a full grade prior to the pandemic when compared to the early days, and have moved it another full grade since then (give or take). If you haven't been submitting vintage cards for grading in the past year or two, then you may not have recognized it. But cards that used to be graded as 6s and even 7s are currently being put into 4 and 5 holders with extreme regularity. You can occasionally still get a fair grader, but on average, it's really gotten bad there. The correlation between grade distributions for each card and what year they were submitted is extremely high.

I've graded thousands of vintage cards over the past few years, and I keep meticulous records. Grading today is just a vastly different landscape than it used to be.

I sadly can’t argue with this. I’d like to be able to but I don’t think I can.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

PSA has simply moved the goalposts too far from where they used to be. They had moved it by about a full grade prior to the pandemic when compared to the early days, and have moved it another full grade since then (give or take). If you haven't been submitting vintage cards for grading in the past year or two, then you may not have recognized it. But cards that used to be graded as 6s and even 7s are currently being put into 4 and 5 holders with extreme regularity. You can occasionally still get a fair grader, but on average, it's really gotten bad there. The correlation between grade distributions for each card and what year they were submitted is extremely high.

I've graded thousands of vintage cards over the past few years, and I keep meticulous records. Grading today is just a vastly different landscape than it used to be.

I would bet my life the same is not true for their favored insiders.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would bet my life the same is not true for their favored insiders.

I'm no favored insider, but I will share that I have noticed my expensive submissions seem to grade more reasonably than my cheap submissions. My theory is the big stuff is going to the experienced graders who have been there a while, the cheap stuff is going to guys who only know shiny crap.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I'm no favored insider, but I will share that I have noticed my expensive submissions seem to grade more reasonably than my cheap submissions. My theory is the big stuff is going to the experienced graders who have been there a while, the cheap stuff is going to guys who only know shiny crap.

Yep, this is precisely my experience as well. All of my premium, walk-through, super express, etc. submissions are usually graded accurately, or at least fairly. They've tightened up a little from the early days, but it's more like one goalpost move than two. All of my cheap vintage bulk subs are the cards that are getting hammered. Those subs are being graded by the guys who truly have no idea what they're doing. I have two more bulk vintage subs at PSA right now that I know I'm going to regret sending them. My last two bulk subs were just cracked out immediately and are now headed off to SGC.

[Lobo Aullando]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

My theory is the big stuff is going to the experienced graders who have been there a while, the cheap stuff is going to guys who only know shiny crap.

I have a theory that my eleven-decade old cards are getting docked for loss of gloss.

At least, I read their standards, which are stated objectively, and that's all I can come up with.